Oops, I did it again!

I certainly struck a nerve

Yesterday I shared publicly my short little piece examining some of the elements that alt-right/fascist/nazi/whatever people find so alluring about Ancient Rome, while also adding that most of these ideas are based on a delusional view of the past. It definitely struck a nerve - but to me, it is a good thing to make it clear that they are not welcome here and I will not suffer to entertain their views. Sometimes you need to shake the trees to kick them out…

Here is a brief summary of some of the reactions, and a few responses to valid criticisms.

1. The ‘everything I hate is fascism’ crowd

One of the funniest things about this very recognisable bunch of cockroaches that crawl out of the woodwork when I make these sorts of posts is that they will always complain about your use of terminology. No they’re not fascists or Nazis, those are too diluted now, but no they’re also not alt-right, that’s so 2019. This of course makes it hard to pin down exactly who they are or how to define them, and yet there are often shared characteristics. Funnily, Twitter has now made it slightly easier to spot them with the ‘blue tick’ being quite a good indicator of a terrible opinion, at the very least. They also tend to hide behind a fake name or persona, often with oblique references to dog whistles, get very upset about criticism of men or white people, and most often show themselves through their expression of anger - in the last 24 hours I’ve been bombarded with a slew of anti-LGBT and in particular transgender slurs, which speaks to the state of their current online target. So, whoever they are, they cannot hide for long.

2. You can’t look at the past through a modern lens!

Well, you can, but no one is suggesting this is the only method of viewing history. Nor in this case was it happening - instead the focus was on modern fascist (etc) movements using their own ideology as a lens to distort the truth of the past to support their own views of life and society. There is a difference between using modern terminology to describe activities in the past and actual projecting those ideas - one that can be a fine line to walk, but this knowledge comes through the study of those ancient perspectives, something which most are unwilling to do here. Another common line is ‘why do you study them if you hate them so much’ which kind of misses the point - historians are fascinated by the ancient world, but do so out of curiosity and interest, certainly not a desire to recreate or wholly praise it without a critical eye. If you cannot tell the difference between a critical lens and hatred, then you have a problem.

3. People back then believed this too!

The post that particularly sparked a lot of this discussion was in relation to an oft quoted template, which uses the ‘hard men create good times, good times create weak men’ narrative to suggest that any progressive movements they do not like in society are creating ‘weak’ people that will lead to decadence and decay. They will often back this up by looking at similar narratives in older and even ancient writers. It’s true that people have thought like this for a long time, but that doesn’t mean they are write nor have the ideas of what is ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ remained constant. In reality, the reasons for the rise and fall of societies are extremely complex, determined by a number of competing factors and absolutely not suited to trite cyclical 4 panel image, no matter who said it or when.

Valid Criticisms?

One thing I will happily admit is that my post was not particularly detailed or expansive - though it was not meant to be. Certainly the scope of the issue far surpassed the original discussion. However, I also didn’t feel at the time it was necessary to explain why some of these notions were wrong - hoping that most of my readers would not need a primer on why ethno-nationalism is bad. Once it passed that target audience, perhaps, it probably needed a more in-depth explanation of some of the key flaws in their views. As I pointed out, however, others have done this in far more detail than me for some time now, so please search out their amazing work.

Finally, many have critcised that I am guilty of portraying the Ancient world as some sort of ‘woke’ paradise where everyone experienced love and acceptance, and were 100% gay and women were powerful etc etc. Most of these criticisms betray their own biases, but I will say that yes, often I can highlight examples of the diverse views and people of this world - not to present that as the entire culture, but often to push back against the torrent of these other people who would have us believe everyone was white, straight, male etc.

I’d like to make a few points as I go, so as to be very clear here:

• Ancient Rome (and similar ancient societies) were extremely patriarchal and most women were subjected to strict moral codes, patterns of behaviour and limited social opportunities. That is not anything that we should try to recreate or endorse, and it is a hallmark of the development of our species that we have worked to create a more fair and equal society for all.

• Sexuality and gender were by no means a black and white concept in the past and the lie that history has been a strict flow from conservative to progressive is damaging and flawed. People have always had unique lives and experiences, and one of the joys of studying the past is to discover evidence of these.

• If you read the history these people would want to read, it would be bland and brutal, lacking most of the beauty and soul with which so many of us have fallen in love. The past is not a clean slate to cherrypick only things that fit your ideology.

• Creating ideologies where you are ‘strong’ and others are ‘weak’ is ultimately to your detriment. It will poison your lives, your relationships and eventually you will leave only a bitter shell on this earth.

That’s all for this week. Maybe something light hearted next weekend. Take care all.